gui_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and the verb 'Report' reasonably implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no session changes are made or disclose behavior when no session exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single eight-word sentence that is front-loaded with the operation and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: the agent knows what to query. It loses one point because it does not clarify how a missing or disconnected GUI session is represented or how this differs from related state tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, but none are needed here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('current GUI/bridge session state'), which clearly identifies this as a status retrieval tool. This is distinct from siblings like solver_status, model_info, and connect_gui/shutdown_gui.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as connect_gui, launch_gui, or solver_status. It does not state prerequisites, such as whether a GUI session must already exist, nor any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.